Ron Paul’s newletters come into focus after last night’s debate; “dangerous” views will surely sink Republican campaign

Ron Paul’s newsletters and his “dangerous” foreign policy views came into focus at last night’s debate as Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann characterized them as “dangerous” and supportive of Iran’s efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon to threaten Israel, and Shawn Hannity, after the debate, gingerly raised the Paul newsletters as highly unreported in the campaign and as a tremendous liability to Paul just as his campaign is surging in Iowa.  Hannity and conservative radio personality Mark Levin have both been criticized by Paul supporters for even bringing up negative information about him.

Paul’s views include that the operation that took out Osama bin Laden, who killed 3,000 innocent Americans, was “unconstitutional” because the Navy SEALS did not have a warrant.  Paul also has stated it is alright for Iran, which has formally professed its policy to destroy the State of Israel, to have a nuclear weapon because they will not attack anyone if we are nice to them.

The media and the opposing candidates for president have gone lightly on Ron Paul so far, and that is because when someone does criticize Paul, they are subjected to a plethora of personal email attacks from what former California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore described to me as the “Paul-bots.”  Their emails and comments can be threatening and scary.  But the  fact that Paul discounts the threat to freedom posed by rogue states like Iran is really nothing new.  Last August I wrote a piece here in California Political Review on Paul, entitled “Ron Paul’s Berlin Wall Problem,” that extended his theoretical foreign policy views to a real world problem – the East German Communists construction of a wall to forceably keep their people inside it – to show that Paul would have no objection to that and would have been at odds with Ronald Reagan’s famous shout-out, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”  The article drew 30 comments, most of them from Paul-bots, and none of them expressing concern with the aspirations for freedom of those Germans who were enslaved by a communist system that professed the eventual destruction of the West.  Instead, the comments took me on for even communicating a message about Paul that was critical, and attempted to “kill the messenger’s” credibility.

What do the Paul newsletters say, anyway?  Well, according to an article in the fine conservative publication American Spectator, based on research by the fine libertarian publication Reason, here is some of what they say:

-In 1992 Paul wrote that “95% of black men” in Washington, D.C. are “semi-criminal or criminal.”

-in 1996 Paul wrote “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.  Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings,and burglaries out of proportion to their numbers.”

-Also in 1996 Paul said “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.”

-He has called Abraham Lincoln “a tyrant” (as did John Wilkes Booth, in Latin, when he murdered the President).

According to the American Spectator, the newsletters are loaded with additional appalling quotes.

I believe in the next few weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses, that both “elephants in the room”: Paul’s crank views and the intimidation tactics of his most ardent followers, will not stop the media and even conservative commentators from exposing the truth about Paul.  A failure to do so could only serve to re-elect Barack Obama, or more dangerous and unthinkable – elect Paul himself.

Comments

  1. This piece is so filled with blatantly false statements bad or no research and inaccuracies I am not taking the time to write them all down

  2. Lionell Griffith says

    From what I heard last night out of one side of his mouth, Ron Paul speaks the language of liberty. Out of the other side, he speaks the language of surrender of that self same liberty to the tyrants of the world.

    He tells us we should act like a dog who submits to his superior by lying down on his back, peeing on his belly, and baring his necks to receive a killing slash from his attacker. This might work for dogs but it doesn’t work for man. Never has and never will. The ONLY way to deal with an attacker is to deliver a blow from which he cannot recover. After it is all over, make sure there is only ONE story to tell.

    Playing nice nice only works for those who are willing to play nice nice as well. We are not the cause of the initiation of violence in this world. Except for pulling our punches, we could have been the end of that violence. With Ron Paul, we wouldn’t get as far as pulling our punches. We would surrender from the get go. Ron Paul is as dangerous to our liberty as Obama. That the reasons are different doesn’t make a difference that matters. Obama sells our liberty. Ron Paul would give it away. Either way it is gone.

  3. Levi Strauss says

    Michele assaulting Pauls’ views on foreign policy were spot on. Assaulting Newts’ views with old half truths and innuendo was probably not as well received, but at least she didn’t tell us about her 27 kids.

  4. The more I listen to Ron Paul the more I like him. The reason he doesn’t get coverage in the media and gets bashed by the Repubs and dems alike is because he scares them. Real change is scary. His foreign policies make sense to me. What right do we have as a nation to be telling other nations what to do? What right do we have to tell others they can’t have nukes when we are the only nation ever to use them. What right do we have to assassinate leaders of sovereign countries and force our system on them? We are not the world police and we have enough problems domestically to be dictating policy to the rest of the world.

    • James V. Lacy says

      What does President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran mean when he says Israel is “heading toward annihilation?” Isn’t “annihilation” a very strong word for a head of state to use if they simply disagree with another nation’s policies?

      Isn’t what you are talking about simply known as international appeasement?

      Here is a portion of a speech Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain gave to the House of Commons in 1938 explaining his policy of appeasement that was intended to save Czechoslovakia from “annihilation” by Hitler.

      “When we were convinced, as we became convinced, that nothing any longer would keep the Sudetenland within the Czechoslovakian State, we urged the Czech Government as strongly as we could to agree to the cession of territory, and to agree promptly. The Czech Government, through the wisdom and courage of President Benes, accepted the advice of the French Government and ourselves. It was a hard decision for anyone who loved his country to take, but to accuse us of having by that advice betrayed the Czechoslovakian State is simply preposterous. What we did was to save her from annihilation and give her a chance of new life as a new State, which involves the loss of territory and fortifications, but may perhaps enable her to enjoy in the future and develop a national existence under a neutrality and security comparable to that which we see in Switzerland to-day. ”

      The result of Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement was for the free State of Czechoslovakia to fall to Nazi and Communist tyranny for the next 50 years. Countless persons died, millions over time lost their basic human rights. Does that matter to you, or should we consider it completely THEIR problem?

  5. Ron Paul never wrote the newsletters. There was an independent editor of them. He did supply a holiday greeting or occassional article, and they were called ‘the Ron Paul newsletters’ so had his persona stamped all over them. What he is guilty of is only lack of oversight of about 10 sentences that went out under his name, though. He never spoke that way, and youtubes of him exist going back to the 70s, 20 years before the newsletters. The newsletters were debunked in the 90s when they were brought up in an attempt to ‘sink his’ congressional campaign when he left medicine to go back to Congress, but it didn’t work. He’s been elected numerous times since then because everyone knows he never wrote them.

    What Ron Paul WAS doing was treating some of the poorest women of all races and religions in Brazoria county, refusing to take medicare or medicaid but never turning anyone away for inability to pay, and treating them just like all the other patients. NPR wrote a recent article mentioning this if you want to google it. Also on youtube is an interview of an NAACP district chief from Ron Paul’s district saying Ron Paul is no racist, and the charges were brought by power brokers who didn’t want a rogue congressman championing the Constitution over power broker politics.

    But believe what you like.

Speak Your Mind

*